I can agree with some of the Reform criticisms, but this is not one of them. Even if Reform were 20% ex-Conservatives, I'd much rather see them in power over a 100% Conservative party. Describing it as a recycle bin for failed Conservatives is disingenuous, and is a petty smear I have come to expect from deluded leftists, and AA. At worst they are an alloy of prior UKIP, then Brexit Party, sympathisers, and more right-leaning Conservative defectors. And you know what? That is exactly what I would have expected.
People have quickly forgotten that the first criticisms Reform faced which had real weight in the mainstream were about their lack of political experience. I watched for months as every engagement with the press, and every publication or online comment, devolved into a statement about their inviability due to lack of real political experience, even as they gained massively in the polls. They managed to find a way to quash those early criticisms, and weaken the Conservatives at the same time. It was a laudable political move, not a bad one.
I find it frustrating that Restore supporters don't see that Reform are in an essentially unique position to complete the destruction of the Conservative party and are so willing to undermine that singular aim with ridiculous purity tests and in-fighting. There is no true Scotsman here, my friends. Get the viable party in first. Then Reform will have to compete with the dregs of the Conservative members who will likely have to show their true colours, and Restore can do for Reform what Reform did for the Conservatives: forcing the issue and oblige them to change our take their votes if they fail to adapt. One step at a time. If you can't see how counterproductive a split Reform/Restore vote would be, there's no helping you.
And just as a gentle reminder: we operate in a First Past the Post electoral system, and it is a zero-sum game. We can talk about purity till the cows come home but every single vote for Restore is a vote AGAINST the more viable Reform. If 2029 comes along and we've spent the last 3 years undermining the most viable party, and then undercut them with a split vote, we'll only have ourselves to blame. The margins are exceedingly tight on this.
Farage has publicly said mass deportations are an ‘impossibility.’ Lowe has a detailed policy paper on mass deportations.
Farage has said you can be Welsh if you’ve lived in Wales for 5 years. Lowe understands there’s such a thing as indigeneity to these isles. And that it matters given the demographic predictions of the next 30 years.
Farage has said we can’t afford to alienate the Muslim vote. Lowe wants to ban halal slaughter & protect Christianity as the national religion.
Farage said he would hold a National grooming gang inquiry. Lowe has actually held a National grooming gang inquiry.
Restore have a number of detailed policy papers on, eg mass remigration, the ability to defend one’s home, supporting the British pub. And they’ve mooted a referendum on bringing back the death penalty. Reform have done none of these things.
I understand that getting elected involves a certain amount of ‘politicking’. But suggesting there’s really no difference between Farage & Lowe is bewildering.
Even bracketing the fact that Farage tried to get Lowe arrested & jailed over a political disagreement, & that he sacked a good few of the more talented young men now in Restore, it’s perfectly clear, on policy alone, that there’s a huge difference between the two parties.
You can argue that a lot of Reform supporters are based, wonderful people - & I would agree - but to argue that the men at the top have anything in common is disingenuous. Our country is at 1 minute to midnight & we don’t have time for games.
Finally, I would add: Restore doesn’t appear to be targeting former Tory voters, like yourself, but rather everyone & anyone who understands the national emergency we’re in & wants to avert civil unrest.
The aforementioned policies are appealing to vast swathes of the electorate who haven’t voted in decades &/or ever because there’s been no one to represent them. That’s a good 30-40% of the country. The Gorton & Denton by-election should have made it obvious that those voters arent interested in Tory-esque Reform.
As for me, I’ve never voted Conservative in my life. This phenomenon is bigger than a group of your former friends & acquaintances on the Right.
Note that here too we see Parvini making an accusation of bad faith (apparently quite a serious one) against another dissident right figure, apropos of nothing, which in this case he had to publicly retract: https://x.com/AcademicAgent_X/status/1760474665695236214?s=20
Most of the time he is not on my radar so I don't know all the history, but my guess would be that: 1) he makes a habit of throwing these poisonous accusations and insinuations at other people who dare to contradict his opinions; 2) he has never stumped up actual evidence for them or successfully unmasked a bad actor; 3) most of the other big dissident right talking heads are too afraid of becoming his next victim to call him out for it unless he goes for them first.
The reasoning was provided in streams at the time and an apology was made. I don't have the time or inclination to listen to dozens of hours of broadcasts in order to win a comment war. Likewise you have, in fact, failed to provide evidence for point 1). I can't think of any unjustified accusations or insinuations that he has made. Some people have called out for failing the most basic of political tests by making excuses for or backing the machine, whether it be Trump or Reform.
Maybe age is a factor in this. Some commenters were probably in school in 2016. When I was 16 I wasn't knowledgeable on real life. It took gradual development through the Bush and Blair years, followed by the Tory betrayals, 'Brexit' and the boom to bust of the Trump saga. The coof was of a slightly different hue, but equally a shit-test that some people, including Keith, who I think is fine on most things, got wrong. Some of us learn quicker than others and to a certain extent the firming up of instincts and stances needs time to develop.
We are lucky in this day and age to have a wealth of people like AA who bring us all sorts of insights and perspectives that were denied to most people in the past. We no longer have to rely on the occasional interesting Scruton book, or rare Peter Hitchens appearances on QT for takes that don't simply give us regime propaganda (although in hindsight I don't think Hitchens is the ally I once thought him to be). In this particular instance there is a naivete in Jack that is simply absent in AA.
Leaving aside the main argument, which you could argue is just an analogy and not a confession of extreme paranoia, in the comment thread someone called "james" who reads Parvini on X (a site that I almost never read) complains that he refuses to engage with people who "disagree in good faith" and instead "dismisses and obsessively blocks them". Parvini's reply is "what 'good faith'?" – clearly implying that these individuals did not just have contrary opinions but also unspecified darker agendas (in the context of the post, they are presumably 'agents of the Matrix', that is to say enemies who lie and obfuscate on purpose). Now, I do not know who these individuals are, and do not care to find out; but if we have this comment, and we have the accusation against Woods, and we have the much more recent one against Hadfield, then we have a case for describing Parvini as someone who habitually makes poisonous accusations without troubling himself to back them up.
Note that this has nothing to do with the merits of his arguments, e.g. on Reform vs. Restore and 'backing the machine'; as a matter of fact I think there is much to be said for some of them. But when you accuse other people of acting in bad faith, even if their opinions are wrong, you are throwing serious reputational shit at them that ought justly to rebound upon you (again, regardless of the value of your work) when it turns out that you have no grounds for throwing it and that you constantly throw it around without just cause. It is up to the DR to decide whether it wants to enforce basic standards of truthfulness and good character, or risk becoming a leftist-style snakepit in which habitual false accusers are granted infinite toleration and opportunity.
The entire right wing is sponsored or influenced by Peter Thiel whose Palantir tech is already being used by the UK government. Certain narratives all go back to him and other Transhumanist weirdos..Maybe one day Jack we can talk about why you are still holding on.
One could get into the weeds, or one could just say here that many indications are that Reform is not an ideal vehicle for the politics which many wish to see at a pivotal moment in British history, with opportunities opening up, as they did with Cameron's Referendum miscalculation.
From his top team choices, announced or waiting in the wings, to his various statements, Farage is not our man. He is aligning with the old guard to continue the old guard dominance, in business and in political life.
The situation is that Restore may make an impact - I assume that Reform will attempt to kill them off in Great Yarmouth in May - and if Restore manage it, they will benefit from the efforts and the vote of those who support a more robust policy. Placeholders in parliament, however small initially, for a later resurgence. If they do not, then begrudgingly Reform will get the vote of people like me, who see 'anything but the Tories' as a primary issue. Even if we are heading towards getting them in a coalition.
For now Restore are effectively a pressure group, who are already causing changes in Farage's messaging, such as today around 'goat herders' versus our young elites. It's clear from this shift that whether you see Restore as a credible threat or not, Reform do, not least to their most energetic foot soldiers. Restore is also not Rupert Lowe. Unlike Reform, this is not a fuhrer princip party.
The danger is that many are now firing buckshot at people closely aligned to them, which will on one side or another inevitably lead to lasting grudges. There is a calmer and more considered way.
Wait, see the polling, see how the pieces start to fall and then act responsibly. Don't get into the emotionalism and cattiness which is particularly represented by J'Accuse and in a lesser way by Pinlico.
I think AA would say that the "centre" on issues like migration is actually far to the "right" of Reform's position, backed by polling data, and therefore it should not be the case that Reform is trying to find a mythical center on these core issues.
I genuinely don't understand, the West is rearming for a nuclear Barbarossa against Russia, and these seemingly intelligent people are discussing politics (when they are all Epstein clients anyway).
Evergreen title
I can agree with some of the Reform criticisms, but this is not one of them. Even if Reform were 20% ex-Conservatives, I'd much rather see them in power over a 100% Conservative party. Describing it as a recycle bin for failed Conservatives is disingenuous, and is a petty smear I have come to expect from deluded leftists, and AA. At worst they are an alloy of prior UKIP, then Brexit Party, sympathisers, and more right-leaning Conservative defectors. And you know what? That is exactly what I would have expected.
People have quickly forgotten that the first criticisms Reform faced which had real weight in the mainstream were about their lack of political experience. I watched for months as every engagement with the press, and every publication or online comment, devolved into a statement about their inviability due to lack of real political experience, even as they gained massively in the polls. They managed to find a way to quash those early criticisms, and weaken the Conservatives at the same time. It was a laudable political move, not a bad one.
I find it frustrating that Restore supporters don't see that Reform are in an essentially unique position to complete the destruction of the Conservative party and are so willing to undermine that singular aim with ridiculous purity tests and in-fighting. There is no true Scotsman here, my friends. Get the viable party in first. Then Reform will have to compete with the dregs of the Conservative members who will likely have to show their true colours, and Restore can do for Reform what Reform did for the Conservatives: forcing the issue and oblige them to change our take their votes if they fail to adapt. One step at a time. If you can't see how counterproductive a split Reform/Restore vote would be, there's no helping you.
And just as a gentle reminder: we operate in a First Past the Post electoral system, and it is a zero-sum game. We can talk about purity till the cows come home but every single vote for Restore is a vote AGAINST the more viable Reform. If 2029 comes along and we've spent the last 3 years undermining the most viable party, and then undercut them with a split vote, we'll only have ourselves to blame. The margins are exceedingly tight on this.
Farage has publicly said mass deportations are an ‘impossibility.’ Lowe has a detailed policy paper on mass deportations.
Farage has said you can be Welsh if you’ve lived in Wales for 5 years. Lowe understands there’s such a thing as indigeneity to these isles. And that it matters given the demographic predictions of the next 30 years.
Farage has said we can’t afford to alienate the Muslim vote. Lowe wants to ban halal slaughter & protect Christianity as the national religion.
Farage said he would hold a National grooming gang inquiry. Lowe has actually held a National grooming gang inquiry.
Restore have a number of detailed policy papers on, eg mass remigration, the ability to defend one’s home, supporting the British pub. And they’ve mooted a referendum on bringing back the death penalty. Reform have done none of these things.
I understand that getting elected involves a certain amount of ‘politicking’. But suggesting there’s really no difference between Farage & Lowe is bewildering.
Even bracketing the fact that Farage tried to get Lowe arrested & jailed over a political disagreement, & that he sacked a good few of the more talented young men now in Restore, it’s perfectly clear, on policy alone, that there’s a huge difference between the two parties.
You can argue that a lot of Reform supporters are based, wonderful people - & I would agree - but to argue that the men at the top have anything in common is disingenuous. Our country is at 1 minute to midnight & we don’t have time for games.
Finally, I would add: Restore doesn’t appear to be targeting former Tory voters, like yourself, but rather everyone & anyone who understands the national emergency we’re in & wants to avert civil unrest.
The aforementioned policies are appealing to vast swathes of the electorate who haven’t voted in decades &/or ever because there’s been no one to represent them. That’s a good 30-40% of the country. The Gorton & Denton by-election should have made it obvious that those voters arent interested in Tory-esque Reform.
As for me, I’ve never voted Conservative in my life. This phenomenon is bigger than a group of your former friends & acquaintances on the Right.
I knew I'd seen that title before, and so looked up this little banger from Keith Woods: https://keithwoods.pub/p/academic-agent-is-still-wrong-about
Note that here too we see Parvini making an accusation of bad faith (apparently quite a serious one) against another dissident right figure, apropos of nothing, which in this case he had to publicly retract: https://x.com/AcademicAgent_X/status/1760474665695236214?s=20
Most of the time he is not on my radar so I don't know all the history, but my guess would be that: 1) he makes a habit of throwing these poisonous accusations and insinuations at other people who dare to contradict his opinions; 2) he has never stumped up actual evidence for them or successfully unmasked a bad actor; 3) most of the other big dissident right talking heads are too afraid of becoming his next victim to call him out for it unless he goes for them first.
Your 'guess' misses the mark, I would suggest.
Might you 'suggest' that with some contrary evidence or argumentation?
The reasoning was provided in streams at the time and an apology was made. I don't have the time or inclination to listen to dozens of hours of broadcasts in order to win a comment war. Likewise you have, in fact, failed to provide evidence for point 1). I can't think of any unjustified accusations or insinuations that he has made. Some people have called out for failing the most basic of political tests by making excuses for or backing the machine, whether it be Trump or Reform.
Maybe age is a factor in this. Some commenters were probably in school in 2016. When I was 16 I wasn't knowledgeable on real life. It took gradual development through the Bush and Blair years, followed by the Tory betrayals, 'Brexit' and the boom to bust of the Trump saga. The coof was of a slightly different hue, but equally a shit-test that some people, including Keith, who I think is fine on most things, got wrong. Some of us learn quicker than others and to a certain extent the firming up of instincts and stances needs time to develop.
We are lucky in this day and age to have a wealth of people like AA who bring us all sorts of insights and perspectives that were denied to most people in the past. We no longer have to rely on the occasional interesting Scruton book, or rare Peter Hitchens appearances on QT for takes that don't simply give us regime propaganda (although in hindsight I don't think Hitchens is the ally I once thought him to be). In this particular instance there is a naivete in Jack that is simply absent in AA.
I have even less patience for trawling his videos and tweets, but with regards to point 1) I can refer you to this post: https://forbiddentexts.substack.com/p/activating-agent-smith-how-the-slop
Leaving aside the main argument, which you could argue is just an analogy and not a confession of extreme paranoia, in the comment thread someone called "james" who reads Parvini on X (a site that I almost never read) complains that he refuses to engage with people who "disagree in good faith" and instead "dismisses and obsessively blocks them". Parvini's reply is "what 'good faith'?" – clearly implying that these individuals did not just have contrary opinions but also unspecified darker agendas (in the context of the post, they are presumably 'agents of the Matrix', that is to say enemies who lie and obfuscate on purpose). Now, I do not know who these individuals are, and do not care to find out; but if we have this comment, and we have the accusation against Woods, and we have the much more recent one against Hadfield, then we have a case for describing Parvini as someone who habitually makes poisonous accusations without troubling himself to back them up.
Note that this has nothing to do with the merits of his arguments, e.g. on Reform vs. Restore and 'backing the machine'; as a matter of fact I think there is much to be said for some of them. But when you accuse other people of acting in bad faith, even if their opinions are wrong, you are throwing serious reputational shit at them that ought justly to rebound upon you (again, regardless of the value of your work) when it turns out that you have no grounds for throwing it and that you constantly throw it around without just cause. It is up to the DR to decide whether it wants to enforce basic standards of truthfulness and good character, or risk becoming a leftist-style snakepit in which habitual false accusers are granted infinite toleration and opportunity.
Trad-caths, not "Trad-cats"
Conform are a recycling bin for failed Torys and have lost the populist energy to the Greens.
Farage going all in with the NeoCon disaster in Iran (on the first day) was a massive clue, as to who has bought up the party....
The entire right wing is sponsored or influenced by Peter Thiel whose Palantir tech is already being used by the UK government. Certain narratives all go back to him and other Transhumanist weirdos..Maybe one day Jack we can talk about why you are still holding on.
One could get into the weeds, or one could just say here that many indications are that Reform is not an ideal vehicle for the politics which many wish to see at a pivotal moment in British history, with opportunities opening up, as they did with Cameron's Referendum miscalculation.
From his top team choices, announced or waiting in the wings, to his various statements, Farage is not our man. He is aligning with the old guard to continue the old guard dominance, in business and in political life.
The situation is that Restore may make an impact - I assume that Reform will attempt to kill them off in Great Yarmouth in May - and if Restore manage it, they will benefit from the efforts and the vote of those who support a more robust policy. Placeholders in parliament, however small initially, for a later resurgence. If they do not, then begrudgingly Reform will get the vote of people like me, who see 'anything but the Tories' as a primary issue. Even if we are heading towards getting them in a coalition.
For now Restore are effectively a pressure group, who are already causing changes in Farage's messaging, such as today around 'goat herders' versus our young elites. It's clear from this shift that whether you see Restore as a credible threat or not, Reform do, not least to their most energetic foot soldiers. Restore is also not Rupert Lowe. Unlike Reform, this is not a fuhrer princip party.
The danger is that many are now firing buckshot at people closely aligned to them, which will on one side or another inevitably lead to lasting grudges. There is a calmer and more considered way.
Wait, see the polling, see how the pieces start to fall and then act responsibly. Don't get into the emotionalism and cattiness which is particularly represented by J'Accuse and in a lesser way by Pinlico.
Ironic that Parvini would accuse anyone of 'bad faith' with his pubic neo-Nazi views on 'Zionism'.
I think AA would say that the "centre" on issues like migration is actually far to the "right" of Reform's position, backed by polling data, and therefore it should not be the case that Reform is trying to find a mythical center on these core issues.
'Reform is not, though, talking about banning porn or abortion'
I can't see it in any of Restore's policies either although the latter should be at least after heart beat.
I genuinely don't understand, the West is rearming for a nuclear Barbarossa against Russia, and these seemingly intelligent people are discussing politics (when they are all Epstein clients anyway).